Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Software design -- The confussion of buzzwords

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on Sep 04, 2004 at 05:33 UTC ( #388485=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Software design -- The confussion of buzzwords
in thread Software design -- The confussion of buzzwords

I wouldn't bother researching all those processes and methodologies.

I believe that if a dozen people pointed to you and yelled "Your pants are on fire!" you'd respond with "I meant to do that and you'll see how smart I am when you want to pay me to set your pants on fire!"


Comment on Re^2: Software design -- The confussion of buzzwords
Re^3: Software design -- The confussion of buzzwords
by Wassercrats on Sep 04, 2004 at 06:04 UTC
    More like "I don't feel the pain and you'll want to pay me to cook your ribs once I'm fully ignited."
      I guess that the best method is knowing that you have to finish the job, even if you have to do it all again , and again. Am I talking about being paid?

      So, when you are sure that you are going to finish it. You start thinking ahead.

      Your structure is going to appear after thinking about the piles of data that you are going to collect before starting the code.

      Then, even when you are actually structuring everything, you keep on fearing that all your good code is not going to take you through the easy way to the end. So, you start asking someone that might have done something similar. There comes the different ways of approaching your analysis.

      The conservative way is getting the most close to your way of working. The most innovative one is tryied when you start getting tired of your daily routine. More or less...

      .{\('v')/}
      _`(___)' __________________________
Re^3: Software design -- The confussion of buzzwords
by Rhys (Pilgrim) on Sep 05, 2004 at 03:02 UTC
    Now, now. Wassercrats is notorious for saying something perfectly sensible in the shortest possible terms. Unfortunately, in English, this means ambiguity. Let's add just a little for tolerances:

    I wouldn't agonize over studying and mastering all those processes and methodologies. While they might be useful, they also might not, and they aren't a pre-requisite to writing good code.

    I think that's a little closer to his original intent. People can get paralysis from worrying too much about coding in the nebulous Right Way just as easily as they get crap code from Slamming Out Code Without Thinking(R)*.

    On the other hand, to quote D.A.R.Y.L., "All knowledge is learning and therefore, good." It's probably worth perusing some of those methodologies, just to see if someone happened to strike gold. Just don't count on it. :-)

    * - SOCWT is (not) a registered Service Mark of Micro$uck.

      I am not concerned about what is "the right way" as much as what are the more sucessfull ways. Currently, I am lacking any formal tools on software design and would like to add some to my toolbox.

      Unfortunately, it is really hard to find any refrences that give an overview of the different design philosophies and methodologies. You almost have to pick a buzzword and learn it. However, I dont want to waste my time learning about a million different design models that I probably will never use since I dont work as a programmer and am not developing for a customer (I am the customer) and dont work with a team of other programmers.

      zzSPECTREz

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://388485]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (16)
As of 2014-07-24 18:04 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (163 votes), past polls